It would seem that whatever falls in, will eventually be radiated back out. In normal terms, this would seem to be part of the cycle defining the relationship between mass and radiation.
Gravity is the contraction of mass, but the process does radiate out surplus energy all through the process and what this seems to suggest is that at some point, it all gets radiated out again.
It might be a good, general interest discussion as what this means for the opposite side of the cycle. That of radiation coalescing into mass.
We know light can shine out for over 13 billion lightyears, that there is a background of fairly uniform radiation, up to 2.7k and that the actual galactic effects extend far beyond the visible centers. So just hypothetically, what would be a reasonable explanation for how to fit the various bits of data into some grand cosmic cycle?
How does radiation coalesce into mass? Is it one process, or are there various stages, from the furtherest edges of the galaxy, through all the cosmic rays, interstellar gases, stars, planets, etc, down to the very core of galaxies.
For one thing, light would seem to travel as a wave, yet it coalesces to a point when it encounters atomic structure, which we call photons. Could this contraction/absorption be a part of this dynamic?
Then there is the issue of dark matter; Generally it seems to congregate around the middle to outer perimeters of galaxies, holding those further spirals and arms to the core. There are also lots of excess cosmic rays, as well as lots of cosmic gases in these areas as well. What is the boundary and relationship between cosmic rays and interstellar gasses? Could there be some bonding process going on there? Light is certainly absorbed by mass. Even plants/photosynthesis can turn it into material.
Then there is the ongoing debate over Big Bang Theory. The proof of which is the redshift of distant light and the aforementioned CMBR. Given how little we really know about the intergalactic medium, outside the hubris of certain doctrines currently espousing multiverses, could there be some very faint, but compounding lensing effect that only mimics recession as a form of reverse equivalency principle?
This would amount to Einstein's cosmological constant, that balances the contraction of gravity.
Light does expand and mass does contract. Why is it so difficult to consider they might balance each other out? All the evidence, from overall flat space, to now this possible refutation of gravitational vortices becoming singularities, would seem to point in that direction. We would have to shed a lot of intellectual supposition to get a much clearer picture and see what is left and how it might fit together.
Regards,
John M